I haven't the patience that median has shown - going through your entire post to illustrate the problems with links you gave. Generally, so far as I can see, these are fine articles written, no doubt, but eminent people but they don't tackle the problem. If we are trying to suggest that humans have some spiritual part, we need a closely defined description of this 'spiritual part' before starting to look for references in academic literature that talks about it. In medical literature, spiritual health is often used as shorthand for various things, including how a person mentally deals with their physical problems. It can also refer to the effect on their religious beliefs has on their well being. Thus medical articles are really of no help at all on this.

This is a religious person trying hard to explain mental illnesses without any real understanding of what they are about. Indeed, the medial understanding of these diseases is very limited but it is likely that the understanding will be better enhanced by serious scientific research of the brain and its internal workings rather than messing about with religious ideas which never, really explain anything.

In contrast and as an example of good science, New Scientist last week published an article which looked at research into depression and why selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRI) don't work for many people. It seems that there is more than one problem with depression and that others not helped by SSRIs can be helped by the use of another neurotransmitter, glutamate. This is a promising area for the development of new treatments. Spirituality with medical conditions would be taken more seriously if they could explain the basis of a condition and come up with a suitable treatment.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Wasn't the serpent "the adversary" given special dispensation by god to do bad stuff?

No, not in the OT. The idea of serpent=satan (literal translation is "adversary")=devil did not come along until centuries after genesis was committed to paper (papyrus?). The jews thought it was a snake, maybe the first snake. It being satan is a post-jesus, NT retcon.

In the OT the snake was punished for his role in the Fall. His legs were removed and he had to eat dirt.[1] Apparently the ancient hebrews thought snakes ate dirt. They probably do ingest a little when eating other things. But not in the way implied in the bible.

Quote

Doesn't makes god the original sinner for allowing the serpent to sin?

There is a strong argument that when you are the omnipotent creator of all being, the buck always stops at you.

Agreed, Screwtape. the original story in Genesis may even have been two completely unrelated stories at one time - one about the tree of life and the garden - a common feature in various ancient religions - and the story explaining the legless snake and why it attacks people.

Whoever redacted the final form of Genesis chose not to include any other identity to the snake in the text and there is no indication that god gave it permission to tell the truth to Adam and Eve. In fact, god told the couple that if they ate from the tree - on that day they would surely die. (You might wonder how much the couple understood, after all they were only just created and were supposed to understand death!) Yet the snake was actually right as they did not die on the day that they ate the fruit.

Of course, Christians try to explain that there was no death until the couple ate from the tree but, once again, there is nothing to suggest this is in the text and if god created humans, well humans are mortal and all die at some time. Magical gardens are one thing but humans all die.

Finally, if this god is omniscient, then he will have known what would happen and could have avoided the whole problem by moving the snake out of the garden - if he had wanted to. Yet the story goes on as it does and god comes out of it uncaring that he has told a lie to the couple. Actually, god doesn't come out well from these stories.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Wasn't the serpent "the adversary" given special dispensation by god to do bad stuff?

No, not in the OT. The idea of serpent=satan (literal translation is "adversary")=devil did not come along until centuries after genesis was committed to paper (papyrus?). The jews thought it was a snake, maybe the first snake. It being satan is a post-jesus, NT retcon.

In the OT the snake was punished for his role in the Fall. His legs were removed and he had to eat dirt.[1] Apparently the ancient hebrews thought snakes ate dirt. They probably do ingest a little when eating other things. But not in the way implied in the bible.

Quote

Doesn't makes god the original sinner for allowing the serpent to sin?

There is a strong argument that when you are the omnipotent creator of all being, the buck always stops at you.

Worms really do eat dirt, but they are not considered cursed or sinful. And how did the poor snake get such a bad rap? Are there a lot of poisonous snakes in the Middle East?

I suspect the primary reason snakes have such poor reputations in most cultures' folklore is the classic snake strategy for dealing with a larger predator: hold still and wait for it to pass. When that clumsy biped fails to see through the camouflage and steps on (or just too close) to the snake, then a warning bite (often without wasting precious venom on something too big to eat) is justified.

Of course, from the human standpoint they just got ambushed while minding their own business.

Of course, Christians try to explain that there was no death until the couple ate from the tree but, once again, there is nothing to suggest this is in the text and if god created humans, well humans are mortal and all die at some time.

True, we are now mortal. Humans were not mortal when first created. Death only came as a result of turning from God. As the scriptures explain.

Wasn't the serpent "the adversary" given special dispensation by god to do bad stuff?Doesn't makes god the original sinner for allowing the serpent to sin?

God did allow for sin. Instead of Angels that are chained in a room with God, He thoughtit better that we trust ourselves to Him voluntarily. We allow our kids to leavehome at 18 following the same philosophy. Imagine our kids kept in rooms in the basement.

There must have been sin before A and E ate the fruit, because the serpent tempted Eve first, then she ate the fruit. The serpent was already bad, right? And the angels in heaven had rebelled against god completely separate from A and E. The angels were already bad. Their disobedience had nothing to do with A and E. We still don't know where the really original sin came from.

Now, we have established that there was evidently sin before A and E ate the fruit. But SW says there was no death. A and E could not have even scratched themselves or taken a single step, because you kill cells and microbes when you do that. Or maybe there were no microbes. Yet.

Nothing died, so nobody in the Garden of Eden had to eat anything, I take it. The animals stood around, living off of photosynthesis, or something. How could A and E survive if they never killed any plants or animals? Or was there cell, microbe, animal and plant death, but human-- and presumably angel--immortality?

SW, can you tell me who was writing down the stuff that happened in the Garden of Eden? Did they use paper and pen? Or was it inscribed in clay tablets? And what museum or university has these records?

If you do not know, who might have this information? It is pretty important, since this would be the first evidence in the history of human beings that there was once no such thing as death.

True, we are now mortal. Humans were not mortal when first created. Death only came as a result of turning from God. As the scriptures explain.

Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? And what about Smallpox? Did God create the virus before the fall?

And why did He create about 7 million species of insect? Wouldn't 200 or 300 have been enough?

Graybeard, you know we are not to question the mysterious ways of god. We are only to submit to his wonderfulness and get bitten by the malaria-bearing mosquitoes he has created for us in his infinite wisdom.

Wasn't the serpent "the adversary" given special dispensation by god to do bad stuff?Doesn't makes god the original sinner for allowing the serpent to sin?

God did allow for sin. Instead of Angels that are chained in a room with God, He thoughtit better that we trust ourselves to Him voluntarily. We allow our kids to leavehome at 18 following the same philosophy. Imagine our kids kept in rooms in the basement.

Gotta be the creepiest movie I have ever seen. I think I lost a piece of my soul watching it. De Niro as Louis Cyphere, one of the few actors (along with Jack Nicholson) who can play the devil without special makeup, and you believe him. Look at his fingernails.

Wasn't the serpent "the adversary" given special dispensation by god to do bad stuff?Doesn't makes god the original sinner for allowing the serpent to sin?

God did allow for sin. Instead of Angels that are chained in a room with God, He thoughtit better that we trust ourselves to Him voluntarily. We allow our kids to leavehome at 18 following the same philosophy. Imagine our kids kept in rooms in the basement.

ergo the original sinner was god as screwtape says the buck stops with the big guy.if he wanted us to stay voluntarily why not just give us a door. One that goes both ways. yes you may say that we can get back to god via jesus but it isn't really the same as adam & eves eden is it? we have to croak it first.

Good questions. Thanks for the interest. Adam was the most intelligent human that has existed. Eve argues that point and I won't quarrel. Adams memory was better than ink on paper.

First off, I find your claims here (that Adam was the most intelligent human who ever existed and that his memory was better than ink on paper) to be incredibly unlikely. Especially since you give nothing but your unsubstantiated word to support them, and indeed, changed the subject to talk about life after death (and life before birth) rather than elaborate on Adam's supposed intelligence.

Second, after his supposed expulsion from Eden, Adam went on to become a farmer - and that's all he apparently did for the rest of his life (well, and have children). That isn't exactly a profession that requires intelligence. I mean, all throughout history, intelligent people have done things which were recorded - thus we know what they did. Yet all we have for Adam is that he got kicked out of Eden, had three sons (notably, no daughters), and eventually died. That's it.

Kind of a stretch to claim that he was intelligent and had a perfect memory, don't you think? That sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Adam was the most intelligent human that has existed. Eve argues that point and I won't quarrel. Adams memory was better than ink on paper. He lived quite a while and his kids were not slouches either. Likely Jesus stepped on a bug or two in his time. But there are clues about what the answer is with Jesus. Likely....existence before death has similarities to Jesus after the resurrection. Here Thomas is asking the same questions: Is your lunch in there? Is that wound going to heal? How can you still be here when I know I saw you dead?

So I suggest that life before death was similar to what life is like after resurrection.

So I suggest that life before death was similar to what life is like after resurrection.

How I read that statement:

So I suggest that <undefined thing> was similar to <other undefined thing>.

Your statement is devoid of content.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

SW, can you tell me who was writing down the stuff that happened in the Garden of Eden? Did they use paper and pen?

Good questions. Thanks for the interest. Adam was the most intelligent human that has existed.

So says a myth. Here's a thought, distinguish this as being more true than me saying "Merlin was the most intelligent human that has existed."

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Adam, who could not read, write or invent anything, was the most intelligent human who ever lived? Really? Like, smarter than Stephen Hawking? Then Eve who could not read, write or invent anything either, was presumably the second most intelligent. That does not even make sense in the context of the story.

They must have sat around in the garden naked, making up logic puzzles, discussing theoretical physics and doing differential equations in their heads. Yet, she was tricked by the serpent, and Adam went right along with it.

They did not even have to invent basic tools until after the fall, I would guess. They had to build a shelter to live in, to hunt animals and store gathered food. You could argue that they became survival smart out of necessity, like early hunter-gatherers.

But by what measure were these people assumed to be intelligent before? Why did they not check back with god first before eating the fruit? Why did they not question why this snake was telling them something different from what god said? They were like, "This talking snake said it was okay, sounds legit, let's chow down, herp derp." There did not appear to be a lot of research or reason involved.

And as for their kids being all that, aside from the incest going on with mom, didn't one son murder the other out of jealousy? Or maybe that is all metaphorical now....

Really!? Adam's only achievement of note was figuring out he had an under-employed penis. Any pimpled teenager could do that without anyone's help. But Adam had to have all the animals paraded before him to see what he was missing out on.

Oh, and he named the animals - clever boy how else would he tell them apart - but not one of those names was recorded in the Bible. What did he name the first goat ... Billy? The first cow ... Daisy? The first duck ... Daffy? I mean how hard would it have been for Adam to have remembered just a few of those historical original names given to the animals? I've given names to many pets in my lifetime - I remember every one of them dearly:

I can support the assertion that Adam was the most intelligent person who ever lived, by googling. Google can supply proof of the most vapid and rare statements.

Has anyone given thought to Adam, the first person God made? Adam named all of the animals, plant life etc. After he named all of these he would have been able to recall the names of each. Perhaps similar to Psalms 147:4 where the Lord says that he knows the number of the stars and calls them all by name.

We can deduce that it was actually Skywriting who made this remark, because nobody else in the universe has ever thought this.

I often find that my own position can be supported by something I said on the internet. Hell, I could even google this post in 15 minutes, to back up what I have said.

I can support the assertion that Adam was the most intelligent person who ever lived, by googling. Google can supply proof of the most vapid and rare statements.

Has anyone given thought to Adam, the first person God made? Adam named all of the animals, plant life etc. After he named all of these he would have been able to recall the names of each. Perhaps similar to Psalms 147:4 where the Lord says that he knows the number of the stars and calls them all by name.

We can deduce that it was actually Skywriting who made this remark, because nobody else in the universe has ever thought this.

Adam, who could not read, write or invent anything, was the most intelligent human who ever lived?

Yes, he wrote down all that happened, and had the best intellect of any human.His offspring built musical instruments by hand and built cities.

Genesis 4

21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Ken Ham, the most famous proponent of Young Earth Creationism says "First, we know from Genesis that Adam named only land animals on the sixth day (and he named them before Eve was created on that same day, by the way). This means that he definitely named them within 24 hours, at most! Second, remember from the previous question that Adam named only “kinds” of land animals and then, only the cattle, birds of the air, and beast of the fields. Adam really named far fewer animals than we think! One more thing—Adam was the most intelligent man that ever lived. God made him with a perfect brain and a perfect memory. It wouldn’t take him long to think of the names and to then remember which animal was which! He had plenty of intelligence and plenty of time to name them all in one day!"

There you are, Ken Ham said it, so it must be true! As usual, Ham pulls things out of his arse as if they were the incontrovertible truth. How does he fool so many people with this garbage?

The same site (written by a Christian) there is the refutation (if one were required.)

Quote

Response 2- Adam was perfect and had the ability to do all this with ease and speed. I find this argument border lining the idea that Adam (prefall) was superhuman. If Adam was superhuman, why did God have to instruct him to do certain things? Adam is told and commissioned to do certain things within the two accounts. Why would a man with perfect intelligence need to be told anything? Wouldn’t he just know? If he lacked something in the area of knowledge, how can he be said to be perfect in knowledge as claimed by YECers? It seems, though morally untainted by sin, that Adam was a normal human who had needs just like any other person (the text points out a need for community).

Of course, it could be that Skywriting does have proof, or at least some evidence ... but I doubt it: if he has swallowed Ken Ham's drivel, then he's probably beyond hope and reason.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Believe him true or not, the character described as Adam was the father of brilliance. But only if you believe that children were taught by their parents in those days.If you think they went away to trade schools to learn how to craft musical instrumentsand forge metal, then Dad could have been stupid. But you also must consider how advanced the entire clan was to be able to spend time to make musical instruments.

Genesis 4 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of those who play stringed and wind instruments. 22 Zillah also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the ancestor of[d] blacksmiths and all artisans of bronze and iron.

I've seen Ken Ham on TV on occasion, but most young earthers fail to connect their claims with any common facts.

All young earthers are deluded and require urgent help.

Quote

Adam had some offspring.

You are gullible -> there was no such person as “Adam”. He is a figment of some Bronze Age peasant who told his children a fairy story. Listen… The Garden of Eden, The Flood, etc. are all myths. They simply did not happen and more than Little Red Riding Hood happened[1]

Quote

They did things that imply genius.

They did nothing, they were not real. You know Rumplestiltskin? Snow White? The legend of Sleepy Hollow? You know some other “creation stories”? Where are your critical thinking skills? Are you really that obtuse?

Listen up! Adam isn’t real, Adam wasn’t real; it’s all made up. Read Genesis, 1, 2, 3, they are at least two different stories, similar in parts, but no more than that.

Quote

You don't have to believe that Adam was real. Adam, the character we read about, had brilliant offspring.

I know I don't have to believe that Adam was real. Nobody in their right mind would believe that Adam was real.

Believe him true or not, the character described as Adam was the father of brilliance.

Hello! Genesis is a fairy story! It never happened!

Quote

But only if you believe that children were taught by their parents in those days. If you think they went away to trade schools to learn how to craft musical instrumentsand forge metal, then Dad could have been stupid. But you also must consider how advanced the entire clan was to be able to spend time to make musical instruments.

Are you trolling? Are you being stupid on purpose? Flutes and drums are made by stone Age tribesmen. Pianos, organs, electric guitars take some building.

Quote

Genesis 4 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of those who play stringed and wind instruments. 22 Zillah also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the ancestor of[d] blacksmiths and all artisans of bronze and iron.

I saw that. (a) Like I said, it is a fairy tale, told by fathers to children so they would go to sleep at night. It explains why there are flutes and drums but does not explain anything about the development of drug resistant [wiki]Staphylococcus[/wiki]; Legrangian mathematics; that the speed of light is absolute; that steam can be used to drive machinery; that carbon-steel is superior to bronze, etc.

What sort of person are you? I mean, are you over 12 years of age? Do you realise how primitive all those are? Basically, they are lumps of stone. 400,000 years of human evolution and they manage to erect some lumps of stone?

In the 20th century alone man has invented powered flight and been to the moon, discovered anti-biotics, and ways to provide for the food needs of a planet of 7 times the population of 1900 and 7000 times the population of 1AD – how’s that for progress and intelligence?

And why the hell have you included “The Tower of Babel” Hello, it isn’t real. We can trace English back to [wiki]Proto-Indo-European language[/wiki] Have a look at the article! You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Skywriting,I have been the one who has been approving your posts. I now see that I have been far too generous. Your ignorance disgusts me and your spreading of ignorance is an insult to humanity. Somewhere, among your posts, you claim to have been educated. I suggest that you claim your money back, I will support you with your post above as evidence.

You are unable to think in a straight line. You subtract from the sum of human intelligence. You have no critical thinking skills whatsoever and what you do see and observe, you translate by the use of fiction when you must know for certain that it is not true. Your beliefs speak of a brainwashed, unquestioning view of the world that was best before 3000 BC when fairytales took the place of unbiased research and investigation.

By your crass gullibility, you have shown to me that you are not fit to give an opinion on anything. You have believed the stupidity of men whose money is earned by telling what they know is lies, twisting the truth, and quoting out of context and reaping the tithes of the people like you.

I suggest you print off a copy of this for use when, after many, many years, you die and there is no heaven.

Listen to what St Augustine said about people like you:

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]